Today, Jesus is often depicted as the personification of the perfect human being in western society. He is celebrated as an individual we should all aspire to become more like, since he was apparently an advocate for all humankind and requested a more peaceful world from those he came in contact with. But if you look closely at his depiction in the now-highly edited and notoriously contradictory New Testament, you can detect the real character of Jesus, by what he said, how he acted, and what he aimed to do. He was obviously no "miracle-worker" (though this was used to convey a sense of supernatural goodness to his religious and political competition), he evidently demanded power and to be in control of his flock, he was insanely jealous of the Jewish religious establishment and the control and influence it exerted, he despised the entire concept of justice, perceived the destruction of the world as a good thing, and was even a proud, unapologetic racist. A deranged David Koresh-like cult leader, he naturally sought to spread his influence through loyal, malleable disciples.

But Judas, the wisest apostle in the bunch, discovered the real man and stopped him.

In this debate, I will successful show that Jesus was a dangerous and deranged individual, who was neither peaceful, orderly, or a promoter of life and equality, that is typically attributed to him; I will show that he was no perfect human being, at the very minimum. My opponent will successful argue in favor of Jesus and the view that he is a good moral example for humankind, through what he said, what he believed, and how he acted.

In ROUND 1, my opponent will accept the challenge and briefly state his or her position. The real debate begins in ROUND 2.

Many Christians today falsely assume that Jesus was a good individual, someone that we should all emulate. Since he gave adherents of Christianity the golden rule--"Do to others as you would have them do to you" [1]--it makes sense for Christians to place Jesus on a moral pedestal. This verse clearly expresses that we should have the kind of respect for our neighbors that we would want for ourselves, and how could we possibly complain against this?

The problem is that Jesus never originated this concept. It's an old moral precept that dates back to many other cultures, many of which existed before Jesus even walked the Earth in search of power. Philosophers and historians refer to this principle of neighborly dignity and kindness as the "golden rule", and it can be found in the scriptures of the Mahabharata, an ancient Indian epic, which dates back to 800--700 BCE: "Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself" [2].

In fact, the golden rule dates as far back as the Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt (2040--1650 BCE), where it was used in an ancient story regarding the ancient Goddess Ma'at; historians have discovered it on a papyrus dating back to 664--323 BCE: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another" [2].

The golden rule was preached by the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius (500 BCE): "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself" [2]. It can also be fan in other cultures of antiquity spanning the globe, and was communicated by philosophers of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. It even shows up in the Jewish Talmud, in Leviticus of the Old Testament, and in the Islamic Quran and in the Hindu Anusasana Parva [2].

So the concept of respecting those around you and treating them as you would want to be treated is hardly exclusive to Jesus. He simply took the idea from more ancient sources and used it to gain a following, in his larger aim to establish a new religion and create a kingdom for himself, which would be planted here on Earth. Jesus imagined himself as a messianic figure that would liberate "his people" from Roman occupation and elevate them above everybody else in the Asia Minor region. Like the 20th century figure David Koresh, the ambitious leader of the Texas Branch Davidian religious sect, who was once famously challenged to raise the dead but was killed by the US government in a 1993 seige predicated on physical and sexual abuse allegations, Jesus's amibitious plans were foiled by the alerted political authorities of his day, assisted in no small part by the area's Jewwish establishment that saw a real threat in Jesus and whom Jesus so famously hated (and tried to overturn).

As we shall see, Jesus, his colloborators and his followers were identified as a danger by Judea's Jewwish Religious establishment and by the area's Roman government.

Jesus was a Dangerous, Volatile Figure

A popular portrayal of Jesus is that he was loved by almost everyone he came in contact with, since he so powerfully emitted God's intrinsic and pecuilar goodness to everyone. But this twenty-first century Hollywood depiction of Jesus couldn't be further from the truth. As we might recall from the New Testament itself, Jerusalem's Jews overwhelmingly demanded that Jesus be put to death for essentially claiming that he was their leader, chosen by God. From Matthew 27: "'What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?' Pilate asked [the crowd]. They all answered, 'Crucify him!' 'Why? What crime has he commited?' asked Pilate. 'But they shouted all the louder, 'Crucify him!'" [3]. Two verses later, the crowd shouts something astonishing: "'His blood is on us and on our children'" [3].

As we plainly see from Matthew 27, the Jews of Jerusalem overwhelmingly disliked Jesus for claiming he was their Messiah, their divine leader. The historical accuracy of this entire account has been put into question by scholars, however, because it has the Jews of Jerusalem even accepting any mystical curse that might be placed on them for proudly egging on the death of Jesus, with the improbable words 'His blood is on us and on our children'. If anything, it blatantly reveals the anti-semitism of the author and plays well into the Apostle Paul's maniacal portrayal of the Jews as Christ's killers, since he saw intact Judaism as the greatest competition to his evengalized Christianity in mid-first century [4]. (The Apostle Paul is regarded by scholars as the most prominent architect of Christianity after Jesus, because of his influence and writings, many of which are incorporated into the Christian New Testament [5].) In his 2011 book, Pope Benedict XVI even questions the historicity of this passage in the Matthew account, because the Jews of Jerusalem are rather quick to accept blame on themselves for everything that would befall Jews afterward [4]. The accuracy of this full account is also placed into question because it takes away any responsibility that the Romans had for the death of Jesus, most likely because early Christians wanted to remain on Rome's good side while they endeavored to evangelize Christianity throughout the Empire [6].

However, that Jesus failed to convince the Jews of Jerusalem that he was their religious leader is blatantly obvious, by the fact that he was crucified there just a week before his purported triumphal entry into the city [7]. This isn't suprising however since, throughout his ministry, Jesus made many enemies and was constantly on the run. (Additionally, scholars have pointed out that Jesus did support violence throughout his ministry, and he even encourages his disciples in Luke 22:36 to purchase swords and be ready to use them against their enemies, probably because of the anger he provoked in the Jews and the Roman authorities [8].)

And of course the Pharisees of Jerusalem and the Roman authority were right to fear Jesus. The man had a messiah-complex and spread these very words: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" [9]. "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved" [10]. Here Jesus is demanding that people love him more than their own families, even if it means possibly killing them. He demanded that his followers have that kind of loyalty.

This is clarified in Luke 14:26: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple" [12]. Jesus demanded fanatical loyalty from his followers. One wonders what kind of abuse Jesus and his apostles were inflicting on his followers to get it.

In Matthew 15, Jesus is criticized by Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. How does haughty Jesus respond? By attacking the Pharisees for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death [11]. Evidently, Jesus loved the children.

So here you would think that Jesus was all for the law, right, since the Pharisees didn't practice this (some would say "savage") Old Testament commandment. But you would be wrong. In Matthew 12, Jesus says it's okay to break his father's laws, by breaking the Sabbath day. He tells the Pharisees that he is basically exempt from such fiascoes and that he is Master of the Sabbath [13]. No wonder the Pharisees hated him! He was so inconsistent and pretentiously demanding.

The Bible states that Jesus intentionally avoided many places in the Holy Land because he knew was very unpopular in places. For example, the words in John 7: "After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him"[14]. Later in this chapter, it explains that many people in the area he did visit considered him a liar and a fraud: "Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him...[Some] replied, 'No, he deceives the people'" [14].At one point in his ministry, he angered a Jewwish crowd so much that they threatened to stone him and were about to, but Jesus ran off to hide: "'Very truly I tell you,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds" [15].

Mark 1:45 (considered the earliest gospel) even explains that right after Jesus began his ministry (following the imprisonment of John the Baptist), he could not enter towns so openly, but had to keep his distance. The Roman and Jewish authories saw him as a threat [16].

(Matthew 8:34)
"And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they implored Him to leave their region."

(Isaiah 53:2)
"He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."

(Matthew 10:22)
"And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus

Isaiah 53:3
"He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem."

(Mark 6:3)
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him."

(Luke 4:28)
"And all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage as they heard these things"
(Luke 4:29)
"and they got up and drove Him out of the city, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city had been built, in order to throw Him down the cliff."

(Luke 17:25)
"But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

(Luke 23:18)
But they cried out all together, saying, "Away with this man, and release for us Barabbas!"

(John 1:11)
He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

(John 5:43)
"I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.

-Pro must read a different Bible than ours.

*

Pro:
"As we plainly see from Matthew 27, the Jews of Jerusalem overwhelmingly disliked Jesus for claiming he was their Messiah."

We are aware of this. It's a central theme to our religion and sermons.

*

Pro references:
(Luke 22:36)
"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Telling them to be ready to defend themselves yet surrendering himself with no resistance can hardly be deemed violent. It's common sense to defend yourself.

*

Pro:
"Here Jesus is demanding that people love him more than their own families, even if it means possibly killing them. He demanded that his followers have that kind of loyalty."

Fortelling the future and giving a command are 2 seperate things.

*

Pro:
"This is clarified in Luke 14:26"

Which hardly applies to Westerners living in 2016. In order to follow him at that time in history, you realised your family probably would most likely turn against you, and you would be targeted for your faith. Muslims who convert to Christianity even today are very familiar with this concept. Their family will turn on them, their apostasy is punishable by death per Sharia Law, and their lives are in full danger.

*

Pro:
"He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

Death to Jesus was spiritual death and had nothing to do with the physical.

My intention with this debate isn't to attack churches and religions in general, though some have a history of commiting atrocious acts against people for a variety of reasons. I think religion and churches can be good, though they can certainly do bad as well, as history has shown, such as with the justification of slavery in the history of the early United States and the Spanish Inquisition commited by the Catholic Church against the Jews.

My purpose in this debate, however, is to show that Jesus WAS NOT the perfect individual that Christian religions claim he was. He was a deeply flawed individual and was motivated by both a lust for power and fame, which could be achieved by establishing a religious and political movement (which isn't necesssarily bad in itself). This is not unlike what other founders of religion tried to do, and there are hundreds that come to mind. St. Paul (main proponent of spreading Chistianity to gentiles), Martin Luther (catalyst of the Protestant Reformation), John Calvin (founder of Calvinism), L. Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology), Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah's Witness founder), John Knox (founder of Presbyterianism), Joseph Smith (founder of Latter Day Saints), Moses de Leon (founder of Kabbala mysticism), Ahmad al-Quadina (founder of Sufi Islam), Israel Ben Eliezer (founder of Modern Hasidism) [1]. Now all opf these individuals had there reasons for founding new religions and religious movements. Some of these individuals were motivated by genuinely good reasons, like trying to make sense of the world around them or what they were taught to believe as young people and extrapolating deeper possibly divine meaning from this (which Jesus most definitely did, too). Founding a new religion is almost always going to cause some discomfort for religions already on the scene, and this was certainly the case with Jesus's interpretation of God and the world.

However, that Jesus was a flawed and inconsistent individual, motivated by jealousy of the Jewish Religious establishment of this day, and the power it wielded, is as plain as daylight, and can be readily found in even New Testament scriptures that Chritians rely on for their beliefs. As I've already shown in ROUND 2, Jesus was picky and choosy about the law he followed in Old Testament and Talmud scriptures, just as the Pharisees were (religion evolves under the pressures of everyday life). Galilee and Judea of Jesus' day were under Roman occupation, and the Romans had been pressuring Jews to adopt their moral preferences for about 90 years by the time Jesus began his ministry [2].

As I disclosed in ROUND 2, the Pharisees criticized Jesus for not washing his hands before eating in Matthew 15. Jesus, clearly offended by this, attacks the Pharisees for not killing disobedient children as required by ancient Jewish law [3]. It's clearly Jesus who is wrong in this scripture on both counts. He should wash his hands before he eats, for the simple reason of hygiene (smooth pebbles held by the hand were used as toilet paper in first century Palestine, feces could get everywhere [4]), and he was wrong for criticizing the Pharisees for not killing disobedient (this is a clear example were Jesus condones child abuse and the killing of children for being naughty; funny that most Christians today don't practice what Jesus commands the Pharisees to practice in this verse. Maybe this has something to do with modern humanistic law.).

But Jesus was too proud to apologize to the Pharisees and really wanted to be the Jewish leader, so never mind that he was so flagrantly wrong. He was going to act the part of a Messiah no matter how much his religious competition hated it (and even if it would get him killed, which it did). He tells the Pharisees in Matthew 12 that, because he's the Messiah, he can break the Sabbath and is the Lord of this Holy Day [5]. So Jesus thinks its okay to eat with dirty hands and kill children for being naughty (as demanded by ancient Jewish Law), but he can tread all over the Sabbath (which goes ancient Jewish Law). Here Jesus is clearly being condescending to the Jewish Religious establishment of his day and being selective about what Jewish laws he should follow (his selection is completely backwards in my moral opinion). This is certainly not the only time he does this in the New Testament gospel accounts.

Jesus advocates murder, cruelties, and endless misery on his enemies

For the peaceful, loving guy that my opponent claims Jesus was, there sure is a lot in the scriptures that places Jesus' character in a bad light.

Just a few sentences ago, I showed that Jesus advocated child abuse and murder. Well, in Matthew 11, Jesus advocates the destruction of entire cities for rejecting him as God's personally-selected representative, and claims their fate will be worse then the fate of ancient wicked cities [6]. Not coincidentally, scaring unbelievers is a trick many religious founders use to receive new converts. The founder of the Jehovah's Witness, Charles Taze Russell, famously used the fear of imminent armageddon and destruction to convert people to his newly established faith [7].Jesus condemns the Jewish religous establishment he was jealous of to endless, endless suffering: "So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.Go ahead, then, and completewhat your ancestors started! You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" [12].

Besides the threat of imminent destruction and endless torment for rejecting him, Jesus used bribery to convert people as followers, by promising them big rewards and eternal life: "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life" [8]. As you can plainly read, Jesus was a proponent of the prosperity gospel. Follow him and you will eventually become a very rich person.

In Luke 12:47, Jesus says its okay to beat slaves: “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows" [9]. Additionally, Jesus uses this line to justify eternal torment on people who reject his divine authority.

In Matthew 18:19-20, Jesus promises that a group of followers that pray in his name will receive anything they want: “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them" [10].

Jesus again promises his followers that they will obtain even the most impossible things when they pray to God: "Jesus replied, 'Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, Go, throw yourself into the sea, and it will be done.If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer'” [11].

I wil cover other pivotal material that shows the questionable moral character of Jesus in the next ROUND.

Pro:
"though they can certainly do bad as well, as history has shown, such as with the justification of slavery in the history of the early United States."

It's a false dichotomy by ommission of other facts. Slavery was prominant worldwide, Native Americans and blacks had slaves, and the Civil War was fought between Christians
...and Christians. It wasn't a religious war. It was political. The Civil Rights main battle was whites vs whites. Joseph Stalin is an example of Atheism gone amuck, but let's keep it real.

*

Pro:
"motivated by both a lust for power and fame."

(Matthew 8:4)
Then Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone."
(After healing a lepor)

(2 Corinthians 8:9)
"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich."

(Matthew 20:28)(Jesus)
"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

(Luke 22:27)(Jesus)
"For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves."

(John 6:15)
"So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone."

(John 13:5)
"Then Jesus poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded."

*

Pro:
"but he can tread all over the Sabbath."

What he actually did was heal a man on the sabbath. The Pharisees accused him of "working".

*

Pro:
"Jesus, clearly offended by this, attacks the Pharisees for not killing disobedient children as required by ancient Jewish law."

1)The OT command had nothing to do with children. It is about grown adults who forsake their elderly parents by preferring to fulfill manmade rituals rather than take care of their parents.

2)Jesus gives no command to kill anyone but simply points out the religious hypocrisy of the Pharisees according to their own religion that they keep tossing in his face that he did not care about in the slightest.

*

Pro:
"He should wash his hands before he eats."

The verse doesn't mention Jesus' hand washing practices. It mentions the Pharisees attacking his disciples and he calling out their hypocrisy and ignorance yet again. And...has nothing to do with Christ being dangerous.

*

Pro:
"Religious establishment of his day and being selective about what Jewish laws he should follow."

Actually, he didn't follow any of them because they were insane. So actually he gave logic and reason to humanity by standing against stoning, calling one food holy and another unholy, preaching unconditional forgiveness, animal sacrifices, etc etc. Hardly dangerous or deranged. He was the only one talking sense.

*

Pro:
"his selection is completely backwards in my moral opinion."

Deceptive representation. Pro is an atheist. Pro has no "moral opinion". We are simply evolved by random chance. Morality does not exist, only choices, there is no objective purpose or objective morality in atheism. In Saudi Arabia it is moral to behead or hang homosexuals in the streets. It's semantics. If Pro is not an atheist he can share with us his religion and where his morality comes from.

Pro:
"Jesus advocates the destruction of entire cities for rejecting him as God's personally-selected representative, and claims their fate will be worse then the fate of ancient wicked cities."

Jesus didn't claim to be "a representative". He claimed to be God himself.

Fortelling the future is not violent or dangerous.

*

Pro:
"Jesus condemns the Jewish religous establishment he was jealous of to endless, endless suffering."

People are not eternally punished. Someone drank the kool-aid.

Annihilationism: lost people in hell will be exterminated after they have paid the penalty for their sins.

www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/annihilation-or-eternal-punishment

*

"Jesus used bribery to convert people as followers, by promising them big rewards and eternal life:"

He didn't bribe anyone. Nor is this proof of being dangerous.

*

Pro:
"Luke 12:47, Jesus says its okay to beat slaves."

The verse has nothing to do with slaves. Actually he is speaking of the chastisement and correction God gives those who constantly disobey and are his follower by their own free will. Jesus spoke in allegories.

(John 16:25)
"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about God."

*

Pro:
"Jesus again promises his followers that they will obtain even the most impossible things when they pray to God."

He's actually talking about himself in this verse. No one else had this kind of faith.

Again, my purpose with this debate is not to claim that religion is universally bad. It can be used for good, but generally good religion considers the needs of the many and tries to find some practical way to resolve matters, while emphasizing preserving or improving living qualities and conditions. And Jesus does occassionally do this in the scriptures. But then he also says and does shocking things throughout the gospels--things that are not consistent with being a good moral example for children or anyone....

More Evidence that Jesus is not a good moral example

Jesus argued that he was the only doorway to God, and that there was no other way to know God: "Jesus answered, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father (God) except through me'" [1]. Here Jesus clearly believes he was above all other men; a representative of God that was singled-out for special status. Good men don't claim things like this, lunatics do. Yes, Jesus did say some morally inspiring stuff in his ministry, but he also said crazy stuff like this. Well, guess what? So did Egyptian Phoroahs, Chinese Emperors, Roman Emperors, certain Buddhist Dalai Lamas, preacher Jim Jones, Davidian leader David Koresh, Heaven's Gate founder Marshall Applewhite, Greek philosopher Simon Magus, Persian Shaw Ismail I, Chinese rebel leader Hong Xiuquan, Mita Faith leader Juanuta Peraza, and the list goes on [2][3]. Many of these figures also endorsed peace . . . and destruction on enemies [2][3]. The truth is that Jesus was not a team player. He would have opposed Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, Gandhi and others, because only he is the way to God, and using Jesus as an example that's exactly what many Christians do today. They cite lines like John 15:6: "[Jesus speaking]'If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned'" [7].

In John 8:44, Jesus accuses unbelieving Jews of being children of the devil: "[Jesus speaking] For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies" [9]. And, of course, we all know what Jesus claims about the fate of those that don't accept him as God's appointed representative: "[Jesus speaking] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life" [10].

Jesus was a notorious drunk: "The Son of Man (Jesus), on the other hand, feasts and drinks, and you say, 'He's a glutton and a drunkard, and a friend of tax collectors and other sinners!' But wisdom is shown to be right by its results" [4]. Here, Jesus is speaking, and he confesses to being a prodigious drinker of alcohol. It also indicates that he cared nothing for eating in moderation. He was known among the people he befriended as someone that eats and eats and eat--and a proud glutton at that! Is this someone you would want to be giving moral advice to your children or your diabetic neighbor? Is this someone you woudl want to introduce to people struggling with alcoholism? I know I wouldn't. Here's more on Jesus's love for the inebriating drink: "[Jesus speaking]'A host always serves the best wine first,' he said. 'Then, when everyone has had a lot to drink, he brings out the less expensive wine. But you have kept the best until now!'" [5]. Jesus clearly loved wine and its intoxicating effects. In fact, his first miracle was turning water into wine at a wedding in Cana [5]. That's how Jesus first revealed his divinity. Clearly, the gospel stories were written and orally communicated to appeal to a lot of drunks, to justify their drunken debauchery! The fact that Jesus drank wine profusely is also embarrassing to a lot of Christians. Many even claim that, though Jesus converted the water into wine, he never actually drank it [6]. But this suggestion contradicts New Testament scritpures that clearly claim that he did drink wine, and to the point of intoxication [5]!

Jesus commanded his followers to not worry about their lives and to sell their belongings and to give the proceeds to the poor...because they would be receive filled purses and greater treasures in heaven: "[Jesus speaking] Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life...Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys" [8]. Does this sound like good advice to give to...anyone? No. People should give what they can give, and keep what they must to maintain themselves. But Jesus was an absolutist thinker, which is on full display in so many situations throughout the New Testament.

Jesus was a proud racist and said racist things to the people he encountered: "A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him (Jesus), crying out, 'Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.' Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, 'Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.' He answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.' The woman came and knelt before him. 'Lord, help me!' she said. He replied, 'It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.' 'Yes it is, Lord,' she said. 'Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.' Then Jesus said to her, 'Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.' And her daughter was healed at that moment" [11]. This is a particularly troubling story beecause it reveals Jesus's bigoted worldview. Here he claims that he came only to help the lost sheep of Israel (Jews or the Hebrew), not gentiles (Canaanites, who were typically Philistines and Phoenicians). He refers to the non-Jewish woman and her ethnic group in his parable as "dogs", and to the Jews as "children" (God's children). He refuses to help the woman's daughter in the story, because she isn't a Jew, but eventually he reverses because she convinces him that even "dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table". This story definitely isn't politically correct. This story is also recounted in Mark 7, and it displays Jesus' racist utterances and his bigoted world view [12]. In fact, throughout the gospels Jesus holds the Jews as God's selected, superior people, while everyone else is inferior. It was the Apostle Paul (a Jew raised as a Roman citizen, who was also given authority by that government) who claimed that Jews were equal to gentiles--and he never met Jesus, except in a vision (where he claims he received divine authority from Jesus) [13]. Most historians and scholars claim he is the main architect of Christianity, because he (or immediate followers) is credited for writing much of the New Testament, and spread Christianity through Rome's non-Jewish population [13]. In fact, Paul and the other Apostles never truly got along, specifically on the issue of gentile conversion (as depicted in Galatians 2 and the Book of Acts) [14][15]; Paul however was respected by the Romans, while the other Apostles (not Roman citizens) were not.

Jesus was a legitimate threat to local Roman authority in Judea

Rome took no chances when it came to potential for uprisings. In fact, crucifixion was a common punishment imposed by the Romans in the first century, and typically criminals and revolutionaries were given this fate [16]. The Roman Empire was known to have crucified thousands of people during its active span [16]. Jesus's primary threat was that he could draw a crowd, besides the fact that he threatened the status quo (Judea's Jewish Religious estabishment were befriended by Rome and entrusted to help keep the peace).

Jesus was sealing his fate with every public mocking of the Pharisees and Saducees who were entrusted by Rome to help maintain public order and peace. In fact, you could say Jesus was provoking conflict by ridiculing Rome's entrusted peace keepers in the area.

Futhermore, Jesus was a known collaborator of John the Baptist (he is baptized by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:13 [17]) and even states "John was the greatest man" to have ever lived in Luke 7:28 [18]. The problem is that John publically shamed King Herod Antipas throughout his public ministry, and this ultimately landed him in prison and executed [18]. King Herod Antipas, a Jew and a Roman citizen, was given authority by Rome to maintain peace as tetrach of Galilee [19]. John the Baptist was deeply religious (his father was a respected Jewish priest [20]) and demanded that Jews follow every letter of ancient Jewish law, and scholars perceive this as a conflict he had with Roman authority in the region, since Romans were forcing their customs and beliefs on the area.

By collaborating with and exalting John the Baptist, Jesus was making himself an enemy of the Roman state.

"Here Jesus clearly believes he was above all other men; a representative of God that was singled-out for special status."

-Actually, he claimed to be God, not some "representative". He was the messiah prophecied in the OT. If true, then his claim was simply correct, like it or not.

*

"He would have opposed Muhammad, Gandhi..."

-Muhammed was demon possessed as a child, raped a 6 year old girl, got his revelation from a demon, and decided to kill himself in the Quran...

-Gandhi loved Jesus. Jesus being "the only way" does not define who has that way.

(John 3:17)
For I did not come into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world.

*

"John 15:6: "[Jesus speaking]'If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.'"

It's an allegory. This is why it uses the word "like". If something is useless, you get rid of it or let it expire. My opponent can claim "no one is useless", but then he must argue the usefulness of Stalin, Hitler, Charles Manson and Jeffry Dahmer.

*

"John 8:44"

-The "devil" is defined in the Bible. They resembled him. If they truely were of the devil and Christ literally was God, he was simply stating a fact.

*

"Jesus was a notorious drunk:"

He wasn't a drunk. The Pharisees accused him of being one because he "hung out with sinners". They were accusatory, murdering, thieving, liars who were self righteous religious hypocrites.

*

"Clearly, the gospel stories were written and orally communicated to appeal to a lot of drunks, to justify their drunken debauchery! "

- Doubtful.

(Ephesians 5:18)
"And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit."

(Galatians 5:21)
Envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Not actually. The dialogue is about strongholds. In this verse he is challenging those who sin because of greed, those of which money is a stumbling block. It's not a stumbling block to everyone. Jesus was fine with rendering to Caesar what belonged to Caesar according to himself.

*

"This is a particularly troubling story because it reveals Jesus's bigoted worldview. Here he claims that he came only to help the lost sheep of Israel."

1)He did help her. In this dialogue he lets her know he is here for his own first. This is actually an honorable trait. To feed others while letting your own starve is disgraceful. This is a fault of far left Progressive thinking. Far left Progressive thinking wants to help most "everyone" but winds up unable to help anyone in the end by spreading its means too far. (And by "everyone" it typically means everyone but the majority.) A million dollars is great, but split between 100,000 people, it is useless.

2)He helped her because she continued asking. This is called mercy. God did the same thing to the actual man "Israel" in the OT, and only showed the man "Israel" mercy after several attempts. The act of asking repeatedly shows a genuine need and desire. Repeated requests is begging. Begging is a sign of humility and desperate need for help.
3)The term "dogs" is used as allegorical speech. Political correctness was not a part of Jewish speech 2,000 years ago, nor is it today. This is simply a cultural concept that is foreign to Westerners. Most cultures speak bluntly and to the point. The West is the exception not the rule. Western speech is incorrect to nonwestern cultures. Even American culture used terminology in the past that is now deemed provacative but was seen as normal speech at the time.

"Jesus was sealing his fate with every public mocking of the Pharisees and Saducees who were entrusted by Rome to help maintain public order and peace. In fact, you could say Jesus was provoking conflict by ridiculing Rome's entrusted peace keepers in the area."

1)They came after him. He rebuttled.

2)The same could be said about Martin Luther King and Gandhi and anyone else who has stood against corruption.

*

"John the Baptist"

John was beheaded. He stood against corruption but was not violent. He and Jesus willingly died peacefully for what they believed in.

(John 10:18)
"No one can take my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord."

Well, maybe Jesus wasn't dangerous as in a man-holding-a-knife to-your-throat dangerous, but he certainly was a racist, and he was definitely looking to control people and to incite a revolution with his talk of leading a kingdom. That's deranged and dangerous in my book!
We might as well be worshipping David Koresh on Sundays.

Seeing that one vote was taken down for not explaining S&G or Conduct, I guess I'll do that here, since I ran out of characters. Spelling and grammar was just fine on both parts, relatively equal, and neither committed any major violations of conduct, so both of those are ties. That being said, I apologize to Pro for voting against you. You made a good effort, and were onto something with the racism accusations and comparisons to cult leaders, but your misunderstandings of Scripture couldn't be ignored. I would have recommended diagnosing Jesus with schizophrenia or some other mental illness, because there are a few good sources on that. Trying to undermine Bible quotes is almost useless when your opponent is a serious Christian. I know it's strange that an atheist would vote this way (especially given bronto's offhand "atheists have no morals" comment which made me cringe a little), but I have to give credit where credit is due.

I just said you're welcome to do that. If you want to treat me as irrelevant, go right ahead. It doesn't change the fact that a vote was removed from this debate, and it doesn't change how that removal will affect the ways others perceive it.

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro used multiple sources and had a well rounded argument regarding his point of the argument. Con seemed to be focused more on pure rebuttal with only using a single text in defense.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or S&G. (2) Arguments and sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess specific points made by both debaters and use that assessment to explain the outcome, and sources must be based on the quality and reliability of the sources and not just their quantity.
************************************************************************

Reasons for voting decision: Pro for this debate set a bar, however doesn't actually clear it. The various depictions and portrayals of Jesus as a deranged or dangerous rely heavily on personal characterization from specific scriptural references, however Con does an adequate job of showing such references to be either mischaracterized or woefully out of context. Such includes Jesus' issuance to carry swords, and allusions to 'bribery'. Further speculation was implied about abuse Jesus and his disciples might have meted out, but no actual scripture was cited for such speculation. In short, Pro fails to convince. Con puts up adequate rebuttal to each suggestion, such that the resolution cannot carry.

Reasons for voting decision: Both Pro and Con relied on the NT for their source. Pro's arguments were misguided and often based on misinterpretation of the Gospels. For example, as Con points out, he assumes Jesus is encouraging the killing of children in Matthew 15 rather than accusing the Pharisees of hypocrisy. Since Pro has the BOP, Con went on the defensive and succeeded in refuting almost all of his arguments with individual verses from Scripture. Pro tends to get off-topic, bringing up random figures like Gandhi and David Koresh without fleshing out any comparison to Jesus. He failed to acknowledge or respond to Pro's arguments, even calling Jesus a "representative" of God after Pro made it clear that was not the case. The one area where Con gave an excellent argument and Pro had a rather weak refutation was when he accused Jesus of racism. Other than that, Pro gave few convincing points that Jesus is in any way dangerous or deranged, so this win goes to Con.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.